If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

View Poll Results: What grade would you give Donnie Walsh for his performance thus far with the Knicks?

If not, then enlighten me on how to realistically build a championship caliber team by 2010 with Crawford and Zach on the roster.

This post shows you are ignorant.

Of course Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford can't get the Knicks a championship.

The reason why it's good to make the playoffs, even if you get swept, is that the younger core of players(Nate Robinson, David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari) can get playoff experience that can help them in the future.

Most teams that win championships don't win them by signing a big free agent in one year.

Most teams that win championships have to first gain playoff experience and then add pieces to eventually make them a contender.

What good is a 2010 plan, if nobody on the team has playoff experience?

Lebron James cannot make the Knicks a championship team, if he's the only one with playoff experience. And that's if the Knicks get Lebron, which they won't.

It is shocking how a Knick fan could say that they would rather suffer and not make the playoffs for years, for the sake of a 2010 plan that most likely won't work.

The Los Angeles Clippers have tried what the Knicks are currently trying for the last 30 years, and it still hasn't worked.

Of course Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford can't get the Knicks a championship.

The reason why it's good to make the playoffs, even if you get swept, is that the younger core of players(Nate Robinson, David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari) can get playoff experience that can help them in the future.

Most teams that win championships don't win them by signing a big free agent in one year.

Most teams that win championships have to first gain playoff experience and then add pieces to eventually make them a contender.

What good is a 2010 plan, if nobody on the team has playoff experience?

Lebron James cannot make the Knicks a championship team, if he's the only one with playoff experience. And that's if the Knicks get Lebron, which they won't.

It is shocking how a Knick fan could say that they would rather suffer and not make the playoffs for years, for the sake of a 2010 plan that most likely won't work.

The Los Angeles Clippers have tried what the Knicks are currently trying for the last 30 years, and it still hasn't worked.

Trading your top scorers for role players just makes your team worse.

And what about dealing with the mess (huge contracts) first? If you want to add those championship pieces to a core you need cash. How obvious is that?

You get it right?

I agree that we'll need post season experience to get the motor running, but a first round sweep is borderline demoralizing.! Look what happened last time we got swept!

With all the mess left behind from Isiah Thomas & Layden, renovations were always going to be a trial, because renovations always are! Have you not done any before?

Isiah Thomas should have done precisely what Donnie is doing when he was handed a festering turd of a payroll. Instead he signed more expensive players and escalated the problem. You can't buy yourself out of a hole in the NBA anymore & the entire franchise plummeted into decay.

The current process is like tidying up after a frat party. You get rid of the worst & most unwanted **** first (Isiah, Mebury, Z Bo's contract, James & Rose) & hope the rest of the **** stains will somehow disappear (Curry & Jeffries) because they're too ****ing hard to get out of the carpet.

Don't think that anyone on here wants to not make the playoffs for years either. That would be shocking, but it's not the case..

What's shocking to me is how a few posters on here give the majority of their praise to a Nets player. Never mind crying over spilled milk in the form of Marbury & Z Bo.

Marbury, Randolph & Lopez do not play for the Knicks & it's a good thing (bar Lopez). Deal with it.

Of course Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford can't get the Knicks a championship.

The reason why it's good to make the playoffs, even if you get swept, is that the younger core of players(Nate Robinson, David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari) can get playoff experience that can help them in the future.

Most teams that win championships don't win them by signing a big free agent in one year.

Most teams that win championships have to first gain playoff experience and then add pieces to eventually make them a contender.

What good is a 2010 plan, if nobody on the team has playoff experience?

Lebron James cannot make the Knicks a championship team, if he's the only one with playoff experience. And that's if the Knicks get Lebron, which they won't.

It is shocking how a Knick fan could say that they would rather suffer and not make the playoffs for years, for the sake of a 2010 plan that most likely won't work.

The Los Angeles Clippers have tried what the Knicks are currently trying for the last 30 years, and it still hasn't worked.

Trading your top scorers for role players just makes your team worse.

No, the Clippers have constantly gotten great talent through the draft, then let them walk in the long term because they refuse to pay any money for anybody. They were solely in this for profit for the longest time.

The Baron Davis contract is like, the first real player they've paid that I can think of. The usually let it go a la Elton Brand or Corey Maggette...They'll just replace that talent with another lottery pick, keep their talent level the same, and keep costs down while remaining profitable.

Of course Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford can't get the Knicks a championship.

The reason why it's good to make the playoffs, even if you get swept, is that the younger core of players(Nate Robinson, David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari) can get playoff experience that can help them in the future.

Most teams that win championships don't win them by signing a big free agent in one year.

Most teams that win championships have to first gain playoff experience and then add pieces to eventually make them a contender.

What good is a 2010 plan, if nobody on the team has playoff experience?

Lebron James cannot make the Knicks a championship team, if he's the only one with playoff experience. And that's if the Knicks get Lebron, which they won't.

It is shocking how a Knick fan could say that they would rather suffer and not make the playoffs for years, for the sake of a 2010 plan that most likely won't work.

The Los Angeles Clippers have tried what the Knicks are currently trying for the last 30 years, and it still hasn't worked.

Trading your top scorers for role players just makes your team worse.

All of your posts are filled with ignorance. abcd = ignorance. You say you're in college, but you post like a 13 year old boy. Embarrasing. What's your I.Q.? Like 80? I can't believe I waste my time reading your drivel.

Everything you just said either contradicts itself or is total speculation with zero evidence to support it.

You know you've lost this argument and you're too stubborn to admit it. Evidenced by your love for Crawford and Zach. Players that you've bashed in the past.

Give it up man. Crawford and Zach were not going to lead this team to anything. Not even the playoffs. The team was 6-5 when they were moved. Hardly evidence to say for certain the Knicks were going to make the playoffs. Zach got injured and missed over 20 games in L.A. and Crawford is riding the bench in Golden State.

Both of those teams have more talent than the Knicks yet both have worse records than the Knicks. If Crawford and Zach were so great, how come neither of them are going to the playoffs? Are they really worth mortgaging the Knicks future for many years to come?

This is beyond speculation, this is absolutely ridiculous. You just are attributing more wins blindly. You have no evidence, statistical, consequential, circumstantial, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any of these "estimates" are even in the ballpark of what would happen, none the less accurate. You can't just say that having no Isiah means we win 35. You can't just say that Brook Lopez adds 5 more wins. You can't just say playing Duhon, sitting Crawford and Balkman adds 5 more wins. That's not even close to being anything resembling rational, appropriate or accurate. At all. In any way.

Nothing I wrote was speculation....what is speculation was the thought of getting Lebron James.
That is like the Lakers letting Magic Johnson go to the next team, or Boston letting Larry Bird go to the next team, or Chicago letting Jordan go to the next team.
The Knicks Layden showed just how dum he was in his first year by letting Ewing go to the next team....three months after the Knicks were in the Finals...

Mock draft 2008 by Ford<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] <o></o>
<o></o>Under Layden's tour the Knicks had a decent head coach and coaching-staff. But they did not have all 5 position filled with the right players….they depended to much on PG-Ward, SG-Houston, SF-Spree, and PF-Kurt Thomas to hold the team together offensively and defensively for all 82 opponents. <o></o><o></o>The Knicks biggest problem throughout Isiah Thomas era has been we had the worst coaching-staff in the NBA. Our 23 win season is 75% coach and 25% players.

Cancer-Players List<o></o>Marbury: logic says keep him throughout his ending contract season, unless the next team want him and have a decent guard and first round pick to trade for him. To keep Marbury the Knicks must trade Crawful asap. <o></o>

Crawford: keeping Marbury automatically means trading Crawford. He had 4 years on this Knick Team averaging over 32 mpg and all his flaws are the only consistent thing in his performance. He is 60% of the reason why his teams best performance is a 33 win season. <o></o>

Q.Richardson: he talks as a leader but has no team concept in his performance or in his attitude which divides every locker room he has played in since Depaul, his FG percentage and assist within the last 3 season says he should’ve been traded seasons ago ASAP. <o></o>

Jefferies: has talent some where in his performance its just that is does not show it with any of his Knick teammates in the last 2 seasons. He is not a scorer at any of the positions he has played at, and his defensive performance at any position has been questionable repeatedly. He is not a keeper! <o></o>

Zach Randolph: to selfish in his overall (20-10) performance he needs a defensive-coach and a team-player coach on his back throughout a 82 season….or just trade his contract for a double-double role-player. <o></o>

Curry: is still a one dimensional player that is a "Work in Progress" which needs a personal center trainer to coach him a season or two. <o></o>Jerome James: WHO???<o></o>

All of your posts are filled with ignorance. abcd = ignorance. You say you're in college, but you post like a 13 year old boy. Embarrasing. What's your I.Q.? Like 80? I can't believe I waste my time reading your drivel.

Everything you just said either contradicts itself or is total speculation with zero evidence to support it.

You know you've lost this argument and you're too stubborn to admit it. Evidenced by your love for Crawford and Zach. Players that you've bashed in the past.

Give it up man. Crawford and Zach were not going to lead this team to anything. Not even the playoffs. The team was 6-5 when they were moved. Hardly evidence to say for certain the Knicks were going to make the playoffs. Zach got injured and missed over 20 games in L.A. and Crawford is riding the bench in Golden State.

Both of those teams have more talent than the Knicks yet both have worse records than the Knicks. If Crawford and Zach were so great, how come neither of them are going to the playoffs? Are they really worth mortgaging the Knicks future for many years to come?

I dont know....abcd made some points that u cant argue with.
I agree with u on getting rid of Crawful and Zach....but u just dont get it do u....what the Knicks got back for Zach Randolph was the samething as Waiving him.
I hate to say this to u but Marbury & Zach were the Knicks best two players in the preseason games which their performance makes us alot better than all the teams in the East struggling for the 7th and 8th spot.

I dont know....abcd made some points that u cant argue with.
I agree with u on getting rid of Crawful and Zach....but u just dont get it do u....what the Knicks got back for Zach Randolph was the samething as Waiving him.
I hate to say this to u but Marbury & Zach were the Knicks best two players in the preseason games which their performance makes us alot better than all the teams in the East struggling for the 7th and 8th spot.

No. What the Knicks got back in return for Zach was cap space. Something you were asking for before the season got started. Remember? You wanted the Knicks to GIVE a 2nd round pick and Zach for an expiring contract. We got better than that.

Mebury would have made this team worse. Nobody wanted him on the team which would have made the Knicks another drama-filled laughing stock. It's a good thing he's gone.

Crawford for Harrington was a good deal. Cap space, plus an upgrade in talent.

Saying Mebury, Zach and Crawford would have taken this team to the playoffs is an opinion. Not fact.

It is highly likely we will get more talented players than all 3 of those guys in 2010. We would not have that chance had we kept Crawford and Zach. That is a fact.

Based on comparable Eastern Conference talent, the Knicks should have made the playoffs the last 3 years. But they didn't. I can't say for sure those 3 would have made any difference this year. They are all terrible team players.

Wow, the paper said it, so it must be so, just like when they were comparing Curry to Ewing. Please, Walsh hasn't done anything special. Chicago, just like lots of other teams: Washington, Philly, G-State, Cleveland, wanted to get rid of Larry Hughes. Harrington and Crawford are essentially scorers, and we just replaced one with another. The Randolph trade dumped Mobley and Thomas on us, which has left us paying a guy who can't even play.

One of the already signed Knicks, not Thomas, and Jerome James for Hughes might have been okay. Better yet, waive James and free up a roster spot for a hungry, cheap player, like the Rockets did with Von Wafer and the Clippers did with that kid they had the other day. Let Marbury know that the minute he gets stupid, he's waived and let him play as a back up to Duhon. Keep Zach, who, if you look at his numbers is definitely not overpaid, based on how great of a lowpost threat, rebounding and offense machine, he is. Bring in Lopez to stabilize the middle, by controlling the boards and intimidating penetration, while also playing the pick and roll with Marbury, Duhon and Craw. You keep a solid bench of guys that include Lee, Nate and Marbury, and you have a team that can compete.

As time moves on, you get the cap space to sign a superstar, or you get one from the draft, which makes the team a contender, more than just a playoff team.

Fist of all, you are way off base!! He traded Zach to the Clippers simply as a cap move. Zach's contract was on the books for another 3/4 years and would have provented the Knicks from making any significant signing.
While Zach's numbers are big he is a horrible post defender!! This is coming from a guy who was an advocate of Zach coming here years back!! I posted this 3 years ago that I wanted Zach, but the team was very different then.
Crawford is a scorer and a very high paid one at that. His contract had 2 years left on it so we shed a year by getting Harrington.
Hughes contract has 1 year left as well so we traded TT and JJ for him; salary wise a wash. Walsh would not have traged for Hughes if Mobely was healthy but since he forced into a medical retirement, he needed a 2 that could defend. Hughes has great potential in the right system and given time to get himslef back into NBA shape. He only has 1 year left as well so it is not a great investment on the part of the Knicks if he fails to meet the projected potential.
Marbury, I mean Starburry is a narcosist of the highest caliber!! He thinks he is Jordan or the prince of NY. He is talnted but nowhere near as talented as what he thinks he is!! He is a spotty defender and has absolutly no NBA court vision or a natural ability to conduct and controll an offense. He is a 6' 3" scorer! He is a very good scorer but that is it.... Good reddence to bad rubbish as my Grandmother used to say!!

if we had made the playoffs id be more inclined to give him an A...but it's still funny/sad that people don't understand the greatness of what he's already done with the cap space...i mean at this point you just got to be an idiot not to understand the road that Donnie has paved for us through these moves, a road thats been covered with crap and leading in every wrong direction, now has a optimistic path....it makes me laugh to see fools come in here and say how worse off we were having traded zdolph or craw, marbury as if we made the moves to be a better team right now, or as if they were going to get us anywhere worth a damn...the knicks the last few years have been riddled with awful players who get paid way more then they should, and thats both the mgmts fault and the players themselves.....having Donnie do what he was able to do, and not only get our heads above water, but be in a good position to sign the king among others, is nothing short of A work.....it'll make the inevitable awful playing of this squad eaisier to take next season knowing whats coming